BUP16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 243

BUP16 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 243

The application for an extension of time was dismissed because the approximately 10 week delay was not satisfactorily explained by unsupported assertions of depression, sickness, back pain, confusion about forms, or a later registry closure; although the Minister identified no prejudice, the proposed appeal lacked merit. The proposed grounds did not identify appealable error in the Federal Circuit Court's reasons: the Tribunal had invited the husband to attend a hearing and could proceed under s 426A when he did not attend and provided no medical evidence; s 424A was not enlivened because the Tribunal relied on the husband's claims and country information; and the significant harm ground...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Migration Application for Extension of Time to Appeal / Application for an Extension of Time to Appeal From Federal Circuit Court Orders Dismissing Judicial Review
Outcome
Application for an extension of time dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time to Appeal' 'protection Visas' 'judicial Review' 'jurisdictional Error' 'procedural Fairness' 'legal Unreasonableness' 'complementary Protection']
['migration' 'administrative Law'] ['extension of Time to Appeal' 'protection Visas' 'judicial Review' 'jurisdictional Error' 'procedural Fairness' 'legal Unreasonableness' 'complementary Protection']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Migration Application for Extension of Time to Appeal / Application for an Extension of Time to Appeal From Federal Circuit Court Orders Dismissing Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether time should be extended under r 36.03 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) to file a notice of appeal approximately 10 weeks late.' "Whether the proposed appeal had sufficient merit, including whether the Tribunal acted legally unreasonably or denied procedural fairness by deciding the review without the husband's oral evidence." 'Whether the Tribunal failed to comply with s 424A, read with s 424AA, of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).' 'Whether the proposed ground alleging misconstruction of risk and fear of significant harm identified appealable error rather than impermissible merits review.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application for an extension of time was dismissed because the approximately 10 week delay was not satisfactorily explained by unsupported assertions of depression, sickness, back pain, confusion about forms, or a later registry closure; although the Minister identified no prejudice, the proposed appeal lacked merit. The proposed grounds did not identify appealable error in the Federal Circuit Court's reasons: the Tribunal had invited the husband to attend a hearing and could proceed under s 426A when he did not attend and provided no medical evidence; s 424A was not enlivened because the Tribunal relied on the husband's claims and country information; and the significant harm ground...

Court Disposition

Application for an extension of time dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Application for an extension of time filed on 3 November 2017 be dismissed.' "The applicants pay the first respondent's costs."]